A little while ago, someone on this community suggested that I read and critique a Dr. Dobson book I found on my shelves, rather than summarily pitching it. Well, I began the critique, but I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate for this community, so if anyone is interested in reading it, it's in a public post in my journal: http://velvetpage.livejournal.com/427459.html?view=2327747#t2327747

Any pharmacist who states in writing an objection to any abortion or all abortions on moral or religious grounds shall not be required to fill a prescription for a drug which purpose is believed by the pharmacist to have the effect or possible effect of terminating a pregnancy; and the refusal of the person to fill such prescription shall not form the basis of any claim for damages on account of such refusal or for any disciplinary or recriminatory action against the person or his or her employer; provided, however, that the pharmacist shall make all reasonable efforts to locate another pharmacist who is willing to fill such prescription or shall immediately return the prescription to the prescription holder. The written objection shall remain in effect until the person revokes it or terminates his or her association with the facility with which it is filed."

(Emphasis mine.) In other words, the pharmacist can't lose his/her job for not doing his/her job, nor can a customer harmed by the pharmacist's "conscience" sue for damages.

A little background: the Georgia General Assembly is a bunch of luny misfits, and the Republicans and Democrats alike, I believe, are eager to advance a theocratic agenda. I shudder whenever the General Assembly is in session because of all the asinine crap they're going to do. Whether you live in Georgia or not, you may recall a little tiff over the state flag a few years ago. That was the key issue of the day!

I'm going to try to contact my representative, but I don't know if I'll be able to in time. I wonder whether it's a waste of effort anyway. I feel that "the avalanche has already started, and it's too late for the pebbles to vote."

I went to the library today, and by the periodicals was a magazine entitled "Creation." It was full of all sorts of articles attempting to attack evolution, but my eye was caught by a cover story, "How Did Dinos Get So Big?" The article was talking about how many extant reptilian species undergo lifelong growth, and fossil evidence supports the idea that dinosaurs did the same, trying to convince the reader at the same time that many species of dinosaur were simply uncommonly large examples of other species (for example, T. Rex was just an uncommonly large tyrannosaur, nevermind the distinct two-digit forelimbs). Anyway, there was one caption for a pair of photos that caught my attention:

DINOSAUR SKULLSTop: Apatosaurus excelsusBottom: Diplodocus carnegii

The skulls below are from two hugesauropods with different names. Yet theskulls are almost identical. Thus they arelikely from the same Diplodocid kind.Diplodocus was a very long and slendervariety (27 m long, but only 10 tonnes),while Apatosaurus was a slightly shorterbut much heavier variety (25 m, 35 tonnes).So while there are many dinosaur names,there were most likely comparatively fewcreated kinds. This means that Noah's Arkneeded comparatively few pairs ofdinosaurs.

As a note, the skulls really did look quite similar, aside from the shapes of some passages in the skulls. It was easy to see how the Brontosaur chimera existed for so long. However, ignoring the writer overlooking obviously vast differences in the structure of the thorax, using unconventional nomenclature, and revealing his bias for a specifically Christian creation, and other wrong crap, he just implied the emergence of novel alleles. Not all of those differences could arise from environmental factors, after all.